When a counselor meets with a client, who sets the agenda? What are the goals of the meeting? Who gets to decide what topics are discussed?
Those personal decisions, of course, ought to be made by the clients. After all, they are the ones seeking assistance. The counselor’s job is to help clients meet their goals.
But what if the government banned counselors from having certain conversations with their clients because the government didn’t approve of the client’s goals? What if some private conversations were banned?
Unfortunately, those aren’t hypothetical questions. They’re a reality in Kansas City, Missouri, and Jackson County, Missouri, where these local governments have passed ordinances that compel and censor certain speech between counselors and some of their clients. So, Alliance Defending Freedom is taking action to protect the First Amendment rights of counselors in the city and county.
Two counselors following their Christian faith
Wyatt Bury is a Christian who provides counseling for children, adults, couples, and families through his counseling practice, Wyatt Bury, LLC. He helps clients through a variety of issues, including depression, anxiety, relationships, trauma, and others.
The other Christian counselor represented by ADF is Pamela Eisenreich. Like Wyatt, Pamela seeks to help minors, adults, and couples navigate various issues, including grief and loss, anger management, addictions, anxiety, post-traumatic stress, and more.
Both Wyatt and Pamela work with Christian and non-Christian clients, and they always approach their counseling in the same way. The counselors meet with clients and let them voluntarily set their own goals, and they allow their clients to choose whether to integrate faith with their counseling. Neither Wyatt nor Pamela would ever impose their views on clients.
Some clients who share their counselor’s faith may ask their counselor to work with them to help them conform their identity, sexuality, and sense of self to their religious beliefs. For example, Pamela has worked directly with clients who have asked her to help them reduce unwanted attraction to members of the same sex or to become more comfortable with their sex in accordance with their goals.
But three ordinances in Kansas City and Jackson County threaten the ability of these counselors to help their clients.
Ordinances violate counselors’ First Amendment rights
In 2019, Kansas City passed an ordinance that prohibits counselors from having certain conversations with their minor clients. The ordinance prohibits counselors from seeking “to change” a minor’s “gender identity,” even if a client has asked their counselor to help them regain comfort with the client’s sex.
But Kansas City’s ordinance does allow counseling that “provides support and assistance to a person undergoing gender transition, or counseling that provides acceptance, support and understanding of a person or facilitates a person’s coping, social support, and development.”
Jackson County passed a nearly identical ordinance in 2023.
Taken together, these ordinances only censor speech in one direction. They enable counselors to assist any minor who is “undergoing gender transition.” So counselors in Kansas City and Jackson County may push young clients toward a gender identity different from their sex, which can lead children to undergo irreparable surgeries or take harmful drugs. But counselors cannot help clients find peace with their biological sex—even when that is the client’s personal goal.
Kansas City also passed a public accommodation ordinance that requires counselors to provide same-sex marital and relationship counseling contrary to their religious beliefs if they offer relationship counseling consistent with their faith. It also requires that counselors provide counseling that encourages clients to speak, act, and identify contrary to their sex and further requires the counselors to refer to the clients using their self-selected pronouns, even when inconsistent with their sex.
The same ordinance prohibits counselors from publishing any materials explaining their reasons for only providing counseling related to sexual orientation and “gender identity” consistent with their religious beliefs.
Children in counseling need real help
ADF attorneys filed a lawsuit challenging the two ordinances on behalf of Wyatt and Pamela. Then-Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey also joined the suit as a co-plaintiff to protect the freedoms of Missourians affected by these ordinances.
However, in July 2025, a federal district court blocked Kansas City from enforcing the public accommodation ordinance to compel Pamela and Wyatt to use pronouns inconsistent with their religious beliefs and allowed some aspects of the lawsuit to move forward. But the district court otherwise ruled against Pamela and Wyatt and upheld most of the ordinances as applied to them. The district court ruling also dismissed the state of Missouri as a plaintiff. ADF attorneys appealed this partial dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit.
The bottom line
Children need to be able to talk about their struggles with people who want to help them, not be pushed toward life-altering drugs and surgeries. These ordinances not only violate the First Amendment rights of counselors but also harm children who simply want to become more comfortable with their sex.
Wyatt Bury, LLC v. City of Kansas City
- February 2025: ADF attorneys filed a lawsuit on behalf of Kansas City counselors Wyatt Bury and Pamela Eisenreich challenging two ordinances that violate their First Amendment freedoms. Then-Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey joined the suit as a co-plaintiff.
- May 2025: ADF attorneys delivered oral argument in the case at a federal district court.
- July 2025: A federal district court blocked Kansas City from compelling the counselors to use pronouns inconsistent with their faith and allowed some of their claims to move forward but otherwise ruled against them. The court also dismissed the state of Missouri as a plaintiff.
- August 2025: ADF attorneys appealed the partial dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit.
Related Articles
